> The new law also allows for fines of 90-750 euros ($105-$876) for gender-based harassment on streets and public transportation. It bans sexual or sexist comments and behavior that is degrading, humiliating, intimidating hostile or offensive.
Banning intimidating behavior has a strong argument for it. Banning overtly sexual comments at least has a clear line to it.
But banning "offensive" behavior? I prefer the right to free speech over the right to not be offended.
Now you might not have realised it's offensive. You might disagree - you think it's fun, and legitimately believe most people think it's fun too. But once you've been told to stop, it's pretty clear. It's perfectly okay to be corrected and to learn. And it's normal to behave different with different people.
So it hardly seems like there's a big issue here.
And in this world of twitter lynching, feminist and political correctness mititantism, this is a blank check that you can bet will be cashed in.
This type of thing is everywhere.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/catcalls-whi...
"Nearly half of young women in London were sexually harassed in public last year, with many forced to endure unwanted male attention on buses and trains, a new study shows."
No that's not harrasment. You're reducing a clear issue that women face daily to your concern about being falsly accused over a smile.
Are you entitled to feeling safe? Yes, without infringing on the rights of others. Are you entitled to not being offended? No, that is not a right. You cannot legislate civility and decency in a free society. You cannot legislate emotional well being and fortitude.
Disclaimer: American, supporter of unrestricted free speech
However I do not support unrestricted harassment. I'm a guy. I have a dick between my legs. I think it's easy to forget that if you DON'T have a dick between your legs, you often times are verbally abused, followed, and otherwise harassed, even if you're pre-pubescent.
It's all fine and dandy to say "If I don't support someone's speech, I'll just ignore it!" until a person twice your size is following you down a dark street at night talking about the sexual things they want to do to your body.
Someone talking about a political opinion making me feel "unsafe" is a stretch, and I wish people wouldn't confuse exchange of ideas with safety. However, someone following me around harassing me and verbally sexually abusing me isn't free fucking speech. It's harassment.
Granted, I don't know what this law will do about it, because I'm assuming harassment is illegal already in France, but I just wanted to point out that the speech you are arguing in defense of is not an exchange of ideas, it's threatening and bordering on sexual violence. I also want to point out that unless it has happened to you personally, it's easy to say things like "just ignore it."
People don't follow people through streets decrying "oh baby do you know about the 1st amendment". This isn't a big problem.
Anyone making this about political speech is not arguing the actual issue of harrasment. Derailing the conversation to discuss some imagined "what if" scenario that isn't real.
If these laws were used to stop legitimate protest then that would be a problem but that isn't even close to happening in France where people protest as a national past time.
So a person twice your size following you down a dark street at night not saying anything is OK?!
It’s enjoyable to get other perspectives, but at the end of they day, I support candidates and judicial nominees who maintain rights as freedoms as unrestricted as possible (speech, firearms ownership, etc). Because you never know who is going to be in power next, and how they will weaponize the exceptions to fundamental rights.
There is a cost to a free and democratic society.
Disclaimer: Brit, supporter of reasonable speech
The following wouldn't be a strong argument for removing the laws against robbery:
What if I accidentally get accused of robbery because I pick up someone's belonging to return it to them when they had left it somewhere.
I would rather have robbery laws and deal with these cases as they arise than not have robbery laws at all. Same goes for harrasment.
You understand that these are different things. You understand that they can legally be treated as different things. Well done.
[Edit: For whatever it's worth, I think the parent comment was mistaken but not worthy of being flagged.]
I wonder how we would react if the person were a man, and weren't that presentable.
It's very, very hard to say when it becomes offending/harassment. There being clear cases like the linked video in the article, doesn't change this.
I'm not saying that that guy in the video should get away with it just because we keep bike-shedding about where the line is, but it is something we need to think about as well.
That's not a defence against another person behaving questionably.
Anyway it's generally understood that there's differences in the appropriate behavior of men and women. For instance, it's okay for me to come up and piss next to a guy who's pissing but probably not okay for me to come up and piss next to a woman who's pissing.
So even if her behavior was accepted as reasonable however odd it was, it's not proof that every guy doing that would also be accepted as reasonable.
You're not responsible for the behavior of other people, but you do have to take into account other people's behavior (to the extent it's known to you) and your own past behavior, when you're deciding how you should interact with other people.
These aren't new ideas. They're the basic principles of manners that have always been part of our society. Criticise pushing them into law as much as you want: but don't act like they're coming out of nowhere and impossible to comply with or enforce.
Sure, sometimes it might work out fine for both parties. In almost all cases it doesn't. If that woman feared retribution due to harassment laws, and she wouldn't have approached your wife, then the world now would be poorer by one anecdote, but at the same time much safer and more welcoming to billions of women. It's not a hard choice at all.
This law is clearly not targeting any potential romantic interaction between strangers on the street. “You’re attractive” can be harassment in a workplace setting (where power dynamics and standards of professionalism are different) without being harassment in a different setting.
This law is targeting catcalling and men who will follow a woman down the street. These behaviors are power plays and are intimidating in a way that a polite and respectful approach is not.
You may never have been the target of such behaviors, but if she travels frequently on foot, your wife almost certainly has been, and can likely tell you just how awful it is to be the target of them - ranging from disempowering to mortifying to terrifying.
This is one of the biggest reasons that restrictions on speech, let alone ones that seem to be so vague, are so very dangerous. They can be used, and abused, to great effect whereas their net positive effect is perhaps harder to gauge. In the US we do not have many laws that are so open to social interpretation, but with those that we do, we already see regular lawsuits well outside the spirit of the law that individuals hope to win by force of legal and persuasive prowess alone. Even if France might have a more mature legal culture, who's to say such things will not change?
This is why I think when looking at laws, we should not see things through the most positive and optimistic lens, but through the most critical and cynical lens. The reason is because that lowest common denominator is shown, time and again, to end up being what the law will be disproportionately used for.
Wasn't this always the biggest problem: People not knowing. I also didn't get any problems and I'm close to your age - but I listened to a lot of stories from my wife in which people were doing things that may be considered offensive or even harassment, and without knowing.
All the big metoo cases, for example, are not people who didn't know. They are people who were activly predatory over many years. The accidents aren't what are being targeted here. It's mostly men activley and knowingly abusing the fact that they can get away with it.
The first you learn of it is when the cops come up and interview you.
You indicate ignorance and also that you think the woman was a shit for dobbing you in.
You indicate ignorance and also deep remorse - you're genuinely hurt that you harassed this woman and potentially several others.
You indicate ignorance and feign deep remorse - you actually think the woman was a shit. You bring up sex with strangers again and the police see that you have form.
There's a difference in what's going to happen in these cases. The fact that the police think it's worth investigating a report of a crime doesn't mean they'll react in the same manner to different circumstances.
That's the key to your comment. You cannot ever know for certain if your conduct offends someone. Some people get offended if you look at them the "wrong" way. I don't think you should be fined for accidentally offending someone.
But, roughly: If you would greet anyone in the same situation (man, woman, child, beautiful or ugly, old or young), then you can greet the person. France has not outlawed greeting your colleagues in the office.
On the other hand, if you would not greet everyone in the same situation, you are a harasser. You do not greet random people in the Paris métro. Thus, if you greet an attractive woman in the Paris métro... well, I don't know if you are technically a harasser under this law, but just don't do it. It's not hard, you know how to do it with other people.
You do not "make dirty noises, comments and whistle" at men in the street. Please don't do that to women either? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/30/uproar-in-fran...
I've seen a lot of negative news about France lately, that it's getting to the point that I might never see myself visting there, despite knowing it would probably have lot to offer in terms of experiences. Where do you draw the line? I think I'm a fairly reasonable individual, and if I speak with someone I'll cut it short if they seem uncomfortable... But it seems pretty crazy that you could have someone call the cops on you just for striking up a conversation.
Seriously, cat-calling is a different beast entirely. nothing like walking down the street to pass a group of men who exclaim very loudly, "Well, she was ugly in front but look at that ass!"
I had a customer literally drool forget his sentences every time he saw me. He'd follow me around the store and talk to me. Other folks would step in. He left me a card - at work! - telling me he'd stop, but also exclaiming how sexy I was and how much he adored me. I had asked him to stop. He had noticed I disappeared when he came into the store. He finally did stop, but it took months of discomfort.
I had a boss that would "accidentally" brush up against my breasts or ass. Small place with no recourse, and I had to quit.
There is a lot of area between these two, and I think it should be quite obvious that they are wrong, but it happens nonetheless. There is a huge difference between a nice chat or nicely asking someone out in a way that respects them and this sort of stuff. Save for the one dude that probably thought I was a prostitute, folks in Amsterdam treated me better (I was there for a fun weekend alone, spouse stayed home) - including the dude that propositioned me after chatting in the coffee shop. He was really respectful and simply asked. I talk to random people on planes and other places willingly. Most conversation is fine so long as the other person is reasonable, and halts when I ask the conversation to stop.
So you can't ask people you don't know out on a date? That's harassment now?
The main thing with the "random person you've never spoken to" is this: It might be something you do from time to time. It might be something she deals with once or twice a week - or daily. You might be respectful and asking, but many others aren't. If you haven't even had a brief conversation, she likely knows it is all based on looks and absolutely nothing about her personality.
You won't personally be harassing her, no. But overlooking this stuff is being ignorant of how she might be treated on a daily basis and it can make you part of the problem, depending on the context of the situation. It isn't like it is hard to simply move on: You likely do this with people that aren't prospective dates in your eyes.
Yes, it's sad that you may lose the love of your life this way. It's sadder that many women lose their actual lives over this kind of thing.
It was marginal to begin with because of the following site guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." That applies to stories as well as comments.
Since there's no reason to assume that the colloquial use of the English word "offensive" is the same as whatever legal term the French law invokes, the point is vapid and basically concern trolling. I think we can expect better from an HN discussion. Applying the site guideline I just quoted, one can foster a higher-quality discussion by assuming that the law writers are not completely stupid.
I'm pretty sure your example be rightly called as non-harassing ( unless you're not sharing additional context)
No. Laws do not work that way.
I also wonder if this would be something that cities in the US like San Francisco would adopt. Not just harassment against women but just harassment in general. I do get harassed once in a while while walking in SF, but my wife definitely experiences a lot more of the catcalling and harassment than me. It just makes it uneasy to walk around in SF, day or night, when it's such a beautiful city.
How do we go about remedying this situation without making criminals out of anyone who has a spur-of-the-moment interaction with a stranger a potential criminal? I think that's an important question, and I wonder how (if?) this French law addresses it.
I’d argue that it’s impossible to build an objective description of what actions constitute harassment. Most interactions are going to clearly fall on one side or the other. The ones that don’t, we’ll figure out.
I remember that point being a main part of the debate a few months back, how exactly do you draw the limit? It's different for each women, some of them will enjoy a stranger smiling at them, some others will immediately call it harassment.
Also do you need witnesses? A police officier to witness the harassment? Or just the word of the plaintiff?
I'm at work and I can't dive into the legislation right now, but I doubt they managed to precisely define what constitutes harassment. The secretary for gender equality has been... disappointing, to say the least.